S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
view all titles (9)

All Bill Titles

Official: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. as introduced.

Short: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as introduced.

Short: Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as introduced.

Short: Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as reported to senate.

Short: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as reported to senate.

Short: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as passed senate.

Short: Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as passed senate.

The problem with this bill (and almost all bills that mention the word “terror”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”, or “war on terror”, like the misnamed Patriot Act) is that terrorism is a tactic, not a person or group of people.

By a strict definition of “terrorism”, some tactics employed by the US army could classify them as a “terrorist organization”, but that’s not the point.

Since “Terrorism” is a tactic, in order to call someone a “terrorist”, you need to give that person a fair trial and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question did in fact use terrorist tactics. Bills like this give the US Government the ability to skip that step and classify someone as a “terrorist” arbitrarily without a fair trial, which is no different than giving the Executive branch the power to call someone a murderer and execute them on the spot. Once you start going down that path, the potential for abuse is catastrophic! Section 1031 needs to be removed.

Careful how you read this. It’s written to make you think U.S. Citizens are protected.

Senate Bill 1867, Section 1032(b)
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States

The Language says there’s no “REQUIREMENT”, it doesn’t say they cannot detain or must “exclude”. I cannot find another section, including all wording in 1031 that specifically excludes citizens.

IMHO, a careful reading of 1031 and 12032 shows that, though pretending to protect US citizens, the law actually does the opposite. I write more about this in detail at: http://tinyurl.com/NoS-1867

1032 only “exempts” citizens from US military protection, mandating that the military turn-over citizens it may be holding for rendition as determined by the national executive.

What it does is to make sure that members of US military will violate their Oath to defend the Constitution, including those provisions of the Bill of Rights protecting us from arbitrary executive power.

This is yet another assault on the Constitution by the Bush/Obama right/left neocon cabal.

I have to agree with you, my understanding of that wording after thinking about it is that “requirement” refers to the conditions the army has to meet to justify detaining someone, so saying that requirement doesn’t exist for U.S. citizens means you don’t have to have such justification. Again, I’m not a legal scholar so my understanding could be off, but from what we’ve already heard of the government’s practice of “secret interpretations”(read: Patriot Act), if I could come up with this reading, surely a government agency could.

Please read the actual text of the bill before you believe the hype over Sections 1031 and 1032.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows:
17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
18 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
20 sible for those attacks.
21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly

p.360
1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
2 forces.

18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.

Please read the actual text of the bill before you make your judgments. Don’t believe all the hype until you read it. Here’s some of the actual wording:

S.1867
Sec.1031(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
21 Force.

Also pay close attention to sec.1031(b)
COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
16 this section is any person as follows: (it specifies people associated with specific terrorist organizations – read it.)

It’s okay to oppose the bill if you don’t like it. I don’t love the bill myself, but please don’t let the hype machine get to you – decide for yourself. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf (sections mentioned above are on about page 360)

I don’t care if its the Left or Right, the media is all people advancing their own agendas. As an American, you are empowered to advance YOUR own agenda.

As far back as December 2002, the Washington Post reported that a “parallel legal system” had been put in place under the auspices of the war on terror, in which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.”

The “battlefield” provision of the NDAA is nothing new, it is merely an updating of existing policy that has been applied to American citizens on numerous occasions over the last decade.

The difference is that the danger of American citizens being detained without trial as terrorists on frivolous pretexts is an even greater danger now given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism.

Section 1031 exceeds the laws of war. Its ambiguities and excesses would institute extrajudicial national security state terror. No one anywhere would be safe.

It calls “covered persons” anyone captured or detained, even unconnected to hostilities. In other words, the executive could order anyone indefinitely incarcerated on his say alone. The provision would exceed current presidential authority.

Like the companion House bill, detention would be authorized based on alleged prior associations with suspect groups. US military personnel anywhere in the world would be able to seize US citizens and others.

Anyone could be incarcerated for life with no possibility for redress. Section 1032 requires suspects held in military custody, outside constitutionally mandated civil protections.

Due process and judicial review won’t apply. Police state lawlessness could terrorize anyone suspected of terrorist group ties without proof.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values
The solution is the Udall Amendment a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in

Help eliminate indefinite detention and restore due process by contacting your representatives and urge them to support the bill H.R.3676.

H.R.3676 is a one page bill that in clear, unambiguous language amends the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

jongaskell,
The problem is, all they have to do is say that you are associated with a terrorist group and you can be killed/detained indefinitely. Imagine I was President I can say “jongaskell is associated with al-qaeda, he can now be killed or detained indefinitely”. See the problem now? Have you woken up yet??

The Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.
The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself. The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday.

I am no legal scholar, but it does look to me like this most recent make of the bill does exclude US citizens and even lawful foreign residents from the military detainment. The only sites I can find that talk about that though consistently couch the subject in their own pet conspiracy theories, and I haven’t been able to find a truly plain, basic look at this. I still think some of the bill opens some doors that shouldn’t be(though there is a long list of amendments up for review that address most of these), but is it really as sweepingly bad as some say it is? I’m just not really sure, and I’d like some commentary on it that doesn’t then try to show how it’s proof of OWS trying to kill capitalism and create a police state.

Section 1031 would authorize similar practices. Military forces could be used. US citizens would be terrorized, detained and held indefinitely without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, baseless allegations or none at all.

No reasonable proof is required, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Under subsection (b)(1), indefinite detentions can follow mere membership or support for suspect organizations.

US citizens at home and abroad could be detained. Presidents would have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.

Constitutional, statute and international law won’t apply. Martial law will replace it. As a result, anyone for any reason or none at all could be indefinitely detained for life without charges or trial.

Not only that, on page 362, section 1032(4), if I’m sourcing it correctly, it states:

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In-
11 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
14 interests of the United States.

Sounds to me like a pretty easy way to skirt any of the other sections, citizen or not.

What were these people thinking? Could they actually be so naive as to think that legislation such as this would never be used against the people of this country? Tea Party members have already been referred to as “right-wing terrorists” by the administration. If the government declares you a “terrorist” then this bill applies to you. Am I missing something?

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
22 ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the

A defense authorization bill in 2005 (HR 1268) gave us unconstitutional REAL ID. With over 1,100 pages this one has now been exposed as also doing negative things to our liberty. The House must strike the necessary portions.

Thanks to you, actually me, not a legal scholar, but it does look to me like this most recent make of the bill does exclude US citizens and even lawful foreign residents from the military detainment. The only sites I can find that talk about that though consistently couch the subject in their own pet conspiracy theories, and I haven’t been able to find a truly plain, basic look at this. if there is no judicial review, then definitions don’t matter., because we need follow so many instructions, crystal awards

Thanks to you, actually me, not a legal scholar, but it does look to me like this most recent make of the bill does exclude US citizens and even lawful foreign residents from the military detainment. The only sites I can find that talk about that though consistently couch the subject in their own pet conspiracy theories, and I haven’t been able to find a truly plain, basic look at this. if there is no judicial review, then definitions don’t matter., because we need follow so many instructions, crystal awards

Top-Rated Comments

OpenCongress allows anyone to follow legislation in Congress, from bill introduction to floor vote. Learn more about issues you care about and connect with others who share similar views.
OpenCongress was founded by the Participatory Politics Foundation in 2007 and operated as a joint project with the Sunlight Foundation until May 2013.

Founded in 2006, the Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for open government globally and uses technology to make government more accountable to all. Visit SunlightFoundation.com to learn more.

Like this project and want to discover others like it?

Join the Sunlight Foundation's open government community to learn more.